Paulus, On the Edict, Book IV. To cite anyone before a court of justice is to summon him for the purpose of trying a case.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book IV. This is for the reason that the mother is always certain, although she may have been given to promiscuous intercourse; but the father is he whom the marriage indicates as such.

The Same, On the Edict, Book IV. A man can summon with impunity the parents of his adoptive father, as they are not really his parents, since he is only cognate to those to whom he is also agnate.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book IV. He, also, who has manumitted a slave under the terms of a trust cannot be brought into court, although he may be summoned to force him to manumit a slave.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book IV. Although the Prætor does not state that he will render judgment for a penalty where proper cause is shown, still Labeo says that his authority must be exercised with moderation; as for instance, if the freedman changes his mind and abandons his suit; or if the patron having been summoned does not appear; or if he has been summoned with his own consent; even though the terms of the Edict do not concede this.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book IV. The reason for this is, that where persons are nearly related, any surety is accepted as being sufficiently solvent.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book IV. For although both parties, the freedman who summoned his patron, and he who liberated him by force, violated the Edict, the condition of the freedman is made worse; because, in an action of this kind he takes the part of plaintiff. 1The same equitable reason applies to a party who is summoned to a place other than the one to which he should have been summoned. It can, however, be stated more positively that he who had the right to refuse to appear is not held to have been liberated by force.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book IV. The term “liberate” is one of general application, as Pomponius says for to “carry off” is to remove by seizure with the hands; but to “liberate” can be done in any way whatsoever; as for example, if anyone does not remove a party by force, but causes delay to prevent him appearing in court, so that the day set for bringing the action goes by, or the property in question is lost by lapse of time, he is held to have liberated him; even though he did not do so bodily. But, if he retained him in some place, and did not abduct him, he is liable under the provisions of the Edict. 1Again, if anyone liberates a party who has been summoned for the purpose of annoyance, he is considered to be liable under the Edict. 2The Prætor says: “He must not act maliciously to enable him to be released”; for this can be done without malice when there is good cause for liberation.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book IV. If the party who gave a surety for his appearance in court should die, the Prætor ought not order him to be produced. Still, if he should ignorantly order this to be done, or if the party should die after his order, and before the day set for his appearance, no action can be permitted. If he died after the day set for his appearance, or loses his right of citizenship, a suit can legally be brought against him.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book IV. Ofilius says that anyone who enters the house of another against the will of the owner, even though the latter may be summoned to court, he will be entitled to an action for injury against him.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book IV. In inflicting penalties, the age and inexperience of the guilty party must always be taken into account.